[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 18:30, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> We could do that, but it would be wrong (in my view). Wrong because
> it violates locality -- a barename link with name XYZZY is to what the
> _target_ establishes as is its XYZZY ID, not the source.
Can you clarify what you are calling the source and what you are calling
the target?
AFAIK (but I may be wrong), when an application is "retrieving" a
fragment, the isolation of the fragment is done "client side" by the
application itself. If the schema location is determined "client side"
too, this is a more loosely coupled system than I have been asking on
this list :-) ... Is the idea really to say to the client application, I
refer to fragment "XYZZY" per your naming convention whatever it is?
> Think of how
> it works with DTDs, and a complex case with external entities and
> catalogues and proxies and . . . There's nothing I can do at the
> source end to determine what the target is going to establish as the
> referent under those circumstances. So I don't think there should be
> for the Schema case either.
Not really. When I say that I want to access to anchor "boo" per the
(X)HTML naming system, the rules are set by the server.
> The _user_ does that by setting up the
> processing environment, in either case.
What do you mean?
Thanks.
Eric
--
See you in San Diego.
http://conferences.oreillynet.com/os2002/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
